PDA

View Full Version : The Dirty Little Truth About the Texans Roof Policy


CloakNNNdagger
08-11-2013, 07:03 PM
The policy:


We will consider opening the roof at Reliant Stadium when the game time temperature is projected to be between 50 and 80 degrees. Our goal for implementing the “50-80 Rule” is to provide the most comfortable environment possible to enjoy Houston Texans games. Please note that the threat of rain will influence this decision, and when there is a good chance of rain during a game, the roof will be closed. Also, our parameters for late afternoon and evening games may shift slightly because of the absence of direct sunlight.


But the Chronicle's Science reporter found that:

the games in which the Texans have closed their roof, studied the hourly weather conditions at the time, and found that the team closed the roof about half of the time even when temperatures were between 50 and 80 degrees, and it did not rain.

http://blog.chron.com/weather/files/2013/08/keepingalid-600x319.jpglink (http://blog.chron.com/weather/2013/08/the-houston-texans-think-their-fans-are-weather-wimps-are-you/?cmpid=gshprr)

Playoffs
08-11-2013, 07:34 PM
Roof closed = louder = better for the good guys. :cowboy1:

Wolf
08-11-2013, 07:44 PM
I always thought that the Retractable roof is the biggest waste of money Esp when it may be open one or times a year?

Lucky
08-11-2013, 07:49 PM
Prior to the Steeler debacle, the roof was open fairly often. Since, not so much. No one has ever passed out due to too much shade.

DocBar
08-11-2013, 08:09 PM
I wish they would open it more often. 80* might be a bit warm, especially on the sunny side of the field, but if it's in the high 50's to mid 70's, open the damned thing. Outside football is awesome!!!

thunderkyss
08-11-2013, 08:30 PM
I always thought that the Retractable roof is the biggest waste of money Esp when it may be open one or times a year?

I thought the league wanted closed stadiums, but real grass & the retractable roof was a way to make that happen. During the week, the roof is normally open, for the grass. So I think they are getting their money's worth out of it.

CloakNNNdagger
08-11-2013, 08:50 PM
I thought the league wanted closed stadiums, but real grass & the retractable roof was a way to make that happen. During the week, the roof is normally open, for the grass. So I think they are getting their money's worth out of it.


The only problem is that even with the roof open 24 hrs a day, because of the way the architects designed and oriented the stadium, the amount of sun that the grass received still would not be adequate for it to be optimally maintained (and that is not even accounting for long stretches of cloudy days). That's why it requires frequent transport of the pallets out of the stadium, or replacement.

drs23
08-11-2013, 09:08 PM
The lid is closed because that's the way Kubiak wants it folks. He's on record as having said so.

It's really not a brain teaser.

ATXtexanfan
08-11-2013, 09:18 PM
I like a controlled enviroment. Noise is a better homefield advantage than climate. Just sayin

Vance87
08-11-2013, 09:23 PM
Just wait until Goodell pulls a Selig and makes us open the roof for a January night game. If we ever get one of those.

HJam72
08-11-2013, 09:40 PM
If other teams are "allowed" to have open air stadiums in the freezing winter, then McNair can bring in artificial snow-makers for all I care. Yes, it is a home-field advantage. Get over it.

eriadoc
08-11-2013, 09:58 PM
I understand and support the 80 degree limit. 80 degrees in direct sunlight is pretty harsh. And let's face it, heat is our frozen tundra here. I do not get the 50 degree lower limit. 50 degrees is awesome football weather. Cold weather in Houston is not unbearable, and again, direct sunlight heats up the inside of that stadium to warmer than the mercury says anyway.

TheMatrix31
08-11-2013, 10:01 PM
I hate domes but I like the loud crowd. At least our turf is not ugly like the Superdome or Metrodome. Must be the sun.

DocBar
08-11-2013, 10:11 PM
The only problem is that even with the roof open 24 hrs a day, because of the way the architects designed and oriented the stadium, the amount of sun that the grass received still would not be adequate for it to be optimally maintained (and that is not even accounting for long stretches of cloudy days). That's why it requires frequent transport of the pallets out of the stadium, or replacement.They have 2 or 3 fields worth of these trays, right? How hard would it be to rotate them and not put a field worth of skids in before game time on Sunday? With this system, we should never have turf problems. If the trays don't fit right, fix them til they do.

MEGA SWATT
08-12-2013, 12:44 AM
Leave it closed all the time:scarygirl:

ThaJokaa
08-12-2013, 12:46 AM
They probably just leave it closed now since all the nuts and bolts got rusted up there since they never opened the darn thing!

TexanDave
08-12-2013, 12:04 PM
I would like for the roof to be open more often but in their defense the 3 games last year where the temp fell in 50/80 range there was a chance of rain, even if just slightly. People not covered by the roof overhang would have been complaining about getting wet.

And without any kind of airflow in the stadium it can get hot in there so that has to be considered even if it is 79 it feels much warmer than that.

DX-TEX
08-12-2013, 12:23 PM
Roof closed = louder = better for the good guys. :cowboy1:

I like a controlled enviroment. Noise is a better homefield advantage than climate. Just sayin

It has been proven that this is incorrect. It is no louder with the roof closed than open. If it was true how come the Seahawks stadium is the loudest in the NFL?

paycheck71
08-12-2013, 12:32 PM
It has been proven that this is incorrect. It is no louder with the roof closed than open. If it was true how come the Seahawks stadium is the loudest in the NFL?

That really doesn't prove anything. Each structure is different and has different acoustics.

That doesn't mean that Reliant is louder or quieter with the roof closed/open. I'm just saying that the fact that the Seahawks stadium is loud doesn't mean Reliant would be too.

I don't go to the games, but I'd like to see the roof open more if the temp is comfortable.

Porky
08-12-2013, 01:11 PM
Go to Green Bay and ask those fans if they mind getting wet. Only difference is it's 14 below zero when they are getting wet. Hell, it's a badge of honor. It's football, not tiddly winks.

I don't like the stadium design. I realize it was for the rodeo. Screw the rodeo. This is football, not bull riding. Why should they have had to compromise? Let the rodeo build their own place. Miami is open air. Jax is open. Other warm areas are as well. If it was oriented different, with a different roof design, I bet the air flow and breezes would be much better.

DX-TEX
08-12-2013, 01:24 PM
That really doesn't prove anything. Each structure is different and has different acoustics.

That doesn't mean that Reliant is louder or quieter with the roof closed/open. I'm just saying that the fact that the Seahawks stadium is loud doesn't mean Reliant would be too.

I don't go to the games, but I'd like to see the roof open more if the temp is comfortable.

They have done studies inside Reliant and there is no noticeable difference.

HJam72
08-12-2013, 01:29 PM
When the roof is closed, you do not hear the crowd more loudly--you just hear it 2 hours after they are gone... :fingergun:

paycheck71
08-12-2013, 01:51 PM
They have done studies inside Reliant and there is no noticeable difference.

That's a different story

thunderkyss
08-12-2013, 03:33 PM
Miami is open air. Jax is open. Other warm areas are as well. If it was oriented different, with a different roof design, I bet the air flow and breezes would be much better.

I understand your point. & I agree with you, football should be played in the elements.

The only thing I'd like to inject, is that Houston is not a "warm" area. It's hot as fck in August & September. But from October through February, the roof should be open, rain or shine.

Speedy
08-12-2013, 03:57 PM
Sitting in the direct sunlight, inside that stadium does suck. I did it for 4 years, including the Pittsburgh game, before I moved to the shady south end zone. But for late games (3:00 or later) it is not bad in there with the roof open. Even for night games in August, which they've had 4 open roof pre-season games before, including the 1st 2 they ever played in that building.

As for the noise, I've heard it as loud with the roof open as I've heard it with it closed. With the overhang Reliant has, the roof makes no difference.

That said, I don't care what they do with the roof. I don't go to a game to look at the roof or sky, I go to watch a game on the field below. But if you are going to build a stadium that has a retractable roof, it's kinda silly that you never open the damn thing. Why didn't they just make it a dome?

badboy
08-12-2013, 04:06 PM
I wish they would open it more often. 80* might be a bit warm, especially on the sunny side of the field, but if it's in the high 50's to mid 70's, open the damned thing. Outside football is awesome!!!I don't care if you silly boinkers in the stands are comfy, it would be much hotter on field for the players. :strangle: lol

DocBar
08-12-2013, 05:05 PM
I don't care if you silly boinkers in the stands are comfy, it would be much hotter on field for the players. :strangle: lol
:overreact::overreact::overreact:
Wow...resorting to name calling are we? Well, those silly boinking players get their salaries paid by silly boinkers like me. I say let them sweat!!! Besides, the other team will be hot, too and they aren't used to it like the Texans are. Capers told me so way back in '05. Right before he tried to overheat the Steelers. Hmmm....what was the outcome of that game again??? :foottap:

mmwest
08-12-2013, 09:18 PM
Just wait until Goodell pulls a Selig and makes us open the roof for a January night game. If we ever get one of those.

I've always disliked Bud for that BS he did to the Astros.

Heath Shuler
08-13-2013, 07:55 AM
They have done studies inside Reliant and there is no noticeable difference.

Link please.

drs23
08-13-2013, 11:59 AM
Link please.

I don't know if DX is looking for the link and I'm too lazy but I can attest that what he's posted is true. I've read it several times.

DX-TEX
08-13-2013, 12:20 PM
Link please.

I know I have read articles to the fact but right now I did find this from our own Steph:

http://blog.chron.com/texanschick/2012/01/texans-playoffs-reliant-stadium-frequently-asked-questions/

They may want it closed for noise, though at one point in time, they said the sound was the same open or closed

I know I saw a video where they had a sound meter at both an open roof and closed roof game and the readings were nearly identical

Texans_Chick
08-13-2013, 12:36 PM
I'm fine with the roof closed. But my seats are in the sun.

Unless the temps are perfect, the roof is going to be closed.

Only time they like it open is salute to the military game if the weather is even semi-good because it is good for the flyover.

But generally, north stadium people hate it when it is too hot. Upper deck people hate it when it is too cold.

They have a huge file from that stupid Steelers game from all the problems they had that game. They ran out of water. They had ambulance rolling up to the stadium.

The Texans get the fewest complaints when it is closed. The retractable roof is a sunk cost. So why be uncomfortable if you can be comfortable.

Vinnie
08-13-2013, 03:51 PM
The hurricane Ike season wasn't so bad, granted I believe we only had one home game to deal with during September with the roof open. Otherwise it was actually pretty nice, at least up in 506 where I'm at.

Double Barrel
08-13-2013, 04:29 PM
NFL teams tend to keep retractable roofs closed

The four NFL teams with retractable-roof stadiums have chosen to play almost twice as many games with the roofs closed than with them open. That lone statistic raises the question of whether the convertible tops, such as the one planned for a new Atlanta stadium to be partially funded with public dollars, are worth the increased cost over a fixed dome.

Full article (http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/football/nfl-teams-tend-keep-retractable-roofs-closed/nWcNT/)

Looks like the Texans are pretty much the same as other teams with retractable roofs.

Porky
08-13-2013, 04:47 PM
As usual, the taxpayer gets soaked at the enrichment of the owners. I'm all for people getting rich, but not at the expense of the taxpayer.

If an idea is good, invest your own damn money in it unless you plan on making me an investor and giving me a piece back. If the retractable roof wasn't good enough for McNair to invest his own funds into, why was it good enough for the taxpayer to pick up the tab?

It should have been made into a dome, the rodeo would have been happy and that's that. OR it should have been made open air, and the rodeo can go find their own stadium.

Why is that too much to ask?

Double Barrel
08-13-2013, 04:52 PM
As usual, the taxpayer gets soaked at the enrichment of the owners. I'm all for people getting rich, but not at the expense of the taxpayer.

If an idea is good, invest your own damn money in it unless you plan on making me an investor and giving me a piece back. If the retractable roof wasn't good enough for McNair to invest his own funds into, why was it good enough for the taxpayer to pick up the tab?

It should have been made into a dome, the rodeo would have been happy and that's that. OR it should have been made open air, and the rodeo can go find their own stadium.

Why is that too much to ask?

I'm pretty sure the retractable roof was an NFL requirement at the time of purchasing the team.

I will look for it.

p.s. agree completely with you about taxpayer funds paying for billionaire playgrounds, but that's another subject for another day...

infantrycak
08-13-2013, 05:08 PM
As usual, the taxpayer gets soaked at the enrichment of the owners.


p.s. agree completely with you about taxpayer funds paying for billionaire playgrounds, but that's another subject for another day...

Each deal needs to be examined individually and I think y'all are unfairly presenting the process.

First off these deals are all approved through the local rules and/or populace. But y'all are acting like the city takes a big fat check over to McNair, hands it to him and says hope you make another billion, we don't expect anything in return. The cities are partners in these deals. They sit down with all the other potential partners/investors, let McNair pitch them that it would be a mutually beneficial relationship and then if they judge it would be, partner up with him.

CloakNNNdagger
08-13-2013, 05:18 PM
I'm pretty sure the retractable roof was an NFL requirement at the time of purchasing the team.

I will look for it.

p.s. agree completely with you about taxpayer funds paying for billionaire playgrounds, but that's another subject for another day...

I believe that just before Reliant was to be built, the NFL made it known that they thought that inclement weather made things very unpredictable for patronage of a Super Bowl and therefore would not be seeking to hand out venues to those with open air stadiums (this policy has only now just been recently broken with the upcoming NY SB). I believe that the Texans knew that in order to be considered candidates for any SB, the stadium to be built would have to be covered............not necessarily with a retractable roof, though.......to have a moving roof was just a way for the Texans to make another unique "first"/splash like the Astrodome was in its day.........and relatively even more expensive. But who cared..........we were so excited just to get a team again, we tax payers would not mind getting screwed........a "little."

Double Barrel
08-13-2013, 05:43 PM
Each deal needs to be examined individually and I think y'all are unfairly presenting the process.

First off these deals are all approved through the local rules and/or populace. But y'all are acting like the city takes a big fat check over to McNair, hands it to him and says hope you make another billion, we don't expect anything in return. The cities are partners in these deals. They sit down with all the other potential partners/investors, let McNair pitch them that it would be a mutually beneficial relationship and then if they judge it would be, partner up with him.

Why don't we do that for large manufacturing companies that actually bring jobs to the city? We could finance their buildings for them, give tax breaks and whatever else they need to ensure a 30 year lease and prosperity for the area?

The point is that taxpayers should not be "partners" in entertainment complexes that only serve to enrich the owners and entertainers.

How much do we still owe on the Astrodome while we contemplate tearing it down...at taxpayers' expense?

Our public funds are better served in other areas. Schools, infrastructure, luring large businesses to our city to provide jobs and related support companies.

We can agree to disagree, but in end, if stadiums were such a great idea, private money would build them. But owners know they will not reap the same rewards as they could if they convince cities that their fate is directly related to professional sports.

Please tell me how the following is a good idea:

Billionaire Gets New Sports Arena in Bankrupt Detroit

The headline juxtaposition boggles the mind. You have, on one day, “Detroit Files Largest Municipal Bankruptcy in History.” Then on the next, you have “Detroit Plans to Pay For New Red Wings Hockey Arena Despite Bankruptcy.”

Yes, the very week Michigan Governor Rick Snyder granted a state-appointed emergency manager’s request to declare the Motor City bankrupt, the Tea Party governor gave a big thumbs-up to a plan for a new $650 million Detroit Red Wings hockey arena. Almost half of that $650 million will be paid with public funds.

This is actually happening. City services are being cut to the bone. Fighting fires, emergency medical care and trash collection are now precarious operations. Retired municipal workers will have their $19,000 in annual pensions dramatically slashed. Even the artwork in the city art museum will be sold off piece by piece. This will include a mural by the great radical artist Diego Rivera that’s a celebration of what the auto industry would look like in a socialist future. As Stephen Colbert said, the leading bidder will be “the museum of irony.”

They don’t have money to keep the art on the walls. They do have $283 million to subsidize a new arena for Red Wings owner and founder of America’s worst pizza-pizza chain, Little Caesar’s, Mike Ilitch, whose family is worth $2.7 billion dollars. (“Friends! Romans! Countrymen! Lend me your pensions!”)

Source (http://billmoyers.com/2013/07/31/on-vultures-and-red-wings-billionaire-gets-new-sports-arena-in-bankrupt-detroit/)

paycheck71
08-13-2013, 05:51 PM
Why don't we do that for large manufacturing companies that actually bring jobs to the city? We could finance their buildings for them, give tax breaks and whatever else they need to ensure a 30 year lease and prosperity for the area?

The point is that taxpayers should not be "partners" in entertainment complexes that only serve to enrich the owners and entertainers.

How much do we still owe on the Astrodome while we contemplate tearing it down...at taxpayers' expense?

Our public funds are better served in other areas. Schools, infrastructure, luring large businesses to our city to provide jobs and related support companies.

We can agree to disagree, but in end, if stadiums were such a great idea, private money would build them. But owners know they will not reap the same rewards as they could if they convince cities that their fate is directly related to professional sports.

Please tell me how the following is a good idea:

This is a great argument, and I'm all for it, and in the perfect world this would be the case. But Houston has already fought this fight once and lost it with the Oilers. The truth is, cities compete against each other for major sports franchises. I don't know if there is a positive economic impact of being a city with an NFL team (or other major sports for that matter). I imagine there is one, but I don't know what it is. At the very least, I would imagine that it increases a city's profile and its ability to attract other business. Is it worth hundreds of millions of $$$? The voting public says yes. I wish there was a study that told us what the reality is.

thunderkyss
08-13-2013, 05:56 PM
Why don't we do that for large manufacturing companies that actually bring jobs to the city? We could finance their buildings for them, give tax breaks and whatever else they need to ensure a 30 year lease and prosperity for the area?


I'm pretty sure there are "similar" deals worked out with large manufacturing companies. Check out the property values of all the refineries in your area & check them against the tax roles.

We're paying. They just use a different vocabulary.

ObsiWan
08-13-2013, 06:21 PM
As usual, the taxpayer gets soaked at the enrichment of the owners. I'm all for people getting rich, but not at the expense of the taxpayer.

If an idea is good, invest your own damn money in it unless you plan on making me an investor and giving me a piece back. If the retractable roof wasn't good enough for McNair to invest his own funds into, why was it good enough for the taxpayer to pick up the tab?

It should have been made into a dome, the rodeo would have been happy and that's that. OR it should have been made open air, and the rodeo can go find their own stadium.

Why is that too much to ask?

Personally, I like the retractable roof. We did the dome thing. That's soooo last century.

And as far as the cost, isn't some of that being deferred due to the name of the place. HL&P must be paying something like 15-25 mil per year for that place to be called Reliant. I can't find anywhere to confirm a figure for Reliant but this Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_rights) says $20 mil/year is typical for major mkt sports stadiums.

thunderkyss
08-13-2013, 06:55 PM
Personally, I like the retractable roof. We did the dome thing. That's soooo last century.



If Reliant was an open air stadium, I doubt we'd have another Super Bowl coming in 2017. I thought the league was pretty clear on that when they gave us Super Bowl XXXVIII

The open roof was for the rodeo, for real grass.

If they put field turf in Reliant, then (& imo only then) will I say the roof was a waste.

infantrycak
08-13-2013, 07:08 PM
Why don't we do that for large manufacturing companies that actually bring jobs to the city? We could finance their buildings for them, give tax breaks and whatever else they need to ensure a 30 year lease and prosperity for the area?

They do all the time at state, county and city level. I know my city gave a 10 year tax exemption to get a manufacturer to move in.

The point is that taxpayers should not be "partners" in entertainment complexes that only serve to enrich the owners and entertainers.

It seems you are a bit hung up on entertainment. In this context they are all businesses and the question is will it benefit the city. The Texans employ tons of people and lure all sorts of people here for tourism, etc.

How much do we still owe on the Astrodome while we contemplate tearing it down...at taxpayers' expense?

Here is where I think we can't judge without knowing what happened. You can't look at how much is still owed alone. How much did the city benefit over the life of the dome? Maybe that made more than enough to pay off the loans but stuck it into budgets as received and spent anything over the minimum payments. These things are all set up to generate a return. If they didn't get one the failure is not on the whole concept but on their inability to accurately forecast their return.

Please tell me how the following is a good idea:

Never said it was always a good idea.

mmwest
08-13-2013, 07:48 PM
Personally, I like the retractable roof. We did the dome thing. That's soooo last century.

And as far as the cost, isn't some of that being deferred due to the name of the place. HL&P must be paying something like 15-25 mil per year for that place to be called Reliant. I can't find anywhere to confirm a figure for Reliant but this Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_rights) says $20 mil/year is typical for major mkt sports stadiums.

FWIW HL&P has been long gone. The new sheriff in town is NRG aka my wife's employer.

DocBar
08-13-2013, 07:48 PM
I'm cool with Reliant Stadium. I just wish they would open the roof more often. If 80* is too warm, make the upper limit 70*. Just set a policy and follow it. Open it when policy dictates and close it when policy dictates. Outdoor football games are awesome and Houston has some pretty good football weather during the season.

I'm wishy-washy on taxpayer funds for it (or any sports arena anywhere). I would prefer for owners to assume the risks and reap the rewards. Give them all the proceeds, etc. and tax accordingly. That's in a perfect world. As far as the Astrodome goes, I wonder what good can come from the space it occupies vs. the waste of space it has become. No point in arguing might have been or what ifs. It is what it is. What can be done to make the situation better?

How cool would it be to make the Astrodome a hotel or an area where the city could stage Super Bowl activities? How much would the extra parking from razing it bring in? The only sure thing is that things can't stay the same regarding the Dome. It doesn't really matter what is owed. That was spent when the deal was done. IIRC, there was a voter referendum on it, wasn;t there?

thunderkyss
08-13-2013, 08:04 PM
I'm cool with Reliant Stadium. I just wish they would open the roof more often. If 80* is too warm, make the upper limit 70*. Just set a policy and follow it.

That's the biggest thing.

They need to define "chance of rain" as something more than "any slight chance" because that's what they're using now to keep the roof closed.

The roof should be open 70* & below with less than 39% chance of rain.

Speedy
08-13-2013, 08:11 PM
Personally, I like the retractable roof. We did the dome thing. That's soooo last century.

Except no one knows if it's really retractable any more. It's beginning to become a myth, legend, that it can actually open. Since the hurricane Ike season (2008), the Texans have played 42 football games in that building and only 8 times has the roof been open. It's only been open ONCE in the last 22 games they've played there.

I don't know of any other events where they open the roof, maybe high school games occasionally, but the thing is never open any more.

FWIW the Texans under Kubiak:
22-15 (.595) with the roof closed.
15-6 (.714) with the roof open

DocBar
08-13-2013, 08:12 PM
That's the biggest thing.

They need to define "chance of rain" as something more than "any slight chance" because that's what they're using now to keep the roof closed.

The roof should be open 70* & below with less than 39% chance of rain.I completely agree. IMHO, this should be at least as much about the fan's experience as any kind of "winning edge". FWIW, I've been to games with the roof open and the roof closed. I couldn't tell a bit of difference in the decibel level. Of course, I was in the nose bleed section for the roof open game. BTW, I must say that I haven't had a bad seat in that stadium, whether I was there for football or the rodeo. It just seems well designed for the fan in the stands.

thunderkyss
08-13-2013, 08:55 PM
Except no one knows if it's really retractable any more. It's beginning to become a myth, legend, that it can actually open.

Drive by during the week. It's always open.


FWIW the Texans under Kubiak:
22-15 (.595) with the roof closed.
15-6 (.714) with the roof open

Well hellzz yeah. Keep that mutha open.

...BTW, I must say that I haven't had a bad seat in that stadium, whether I was there for football or the rodeo. It just seems well designed for the fan in the stands.

I'll have to disagree. I've had season tickets in the nosebleeds since 2006. Originally, I told them I wanted to be on the aisle, because I wanted easy access in & out of my seats.

Didn't take me long to realize that was a mistake.

Now, I'm still in the nose bleeds, but I'm in seats 14 & 15. I don't have to get up for anybody (30 seats in the aisle) & I don't have inconsiderate people crossing in front of me as they snap the ball.

DocBar
08-13-2013, 09:03 PM
I'll have to disagree. I've had season tickets in the nosebleeds since 2006. Originally, I told them I wanted to be on the aisle, because I wanted easy access in & out of my seats.

Didn't take me long to realize that was a mistake.

Now, I'm still in the nose bleeds, but I'm in seats 14 & 15. I don't have to get up for anybody (30 seats in the aisle) & I don't have inconsiderate people crossing in front of me as they snap the ball. Sorry about your luck. I buy single game tickets and was talking about the actual football part of the game, not the mundane part of the game. :kitten:

CloakNNNdagger
08-13-2013, 10:05 PM
Drive by during the week. It's always open.


TK,

I pass Reliant almost every day on the way to the Medical Center. During the offseason, the roof typically remains closed. During the season, the roof is kept open as much as possible to allow the sun to at least try to maintain the grass. However, as of last year, they've realized that sunlight from the open roof is not adequate, and they have moved many of the pallets that are not thriving out into the parking lot between games. A situation that in particular ensures the closure of the roof is times when prolonged rains occur, since the stadium cannot handle the drainage and the roof must remain closed. Both this situation and prolonged cloudy weather makes it more likely to later see the pallets out into the parking lot.......or back to the grass farm.

Speedy
08-13-2013, 10:20 PM
TK,

I pass Reliant almost every day on the way to the Medical Center. During the offseason, the roof typically remains closed. During the season, the roof is kept open as much as possible to allow the sun to at least try to maintain the grass. However, as of last year, they've realized that sunlight from the open roof is not adequate, and they have moved many of the pallets that are not thriving out into the parking lot between games. A situation that in particular ensures the closure of the roof is times when prolonged rains occur, since the stadium cannot handle the drainage and the roof must remain closed. Both this situation and prolonged cloudy weather makes it more likely to later see the pallets out into the parking lot.......or back to the grass farm.

They just messed it up from the get go. Not only does the whole field NOT get sunlight even with the roof open, especially in the fall, the part that doesn't get the sun is the south end. They can only remove the pallets from the north end. That means instead of just removing a few pallets from the south end of the stadium and leaving the rest of it inside where it gets sunlight, they pretty much have to remove the whole damn field.

And then the part that does get sun only gets a few hours per day (late morning to early afternoon). So they've got to get it all out of there anyway for it to get adequate sun exposure.

paycheck71
08-13-2013, 10:27 PM
They just messed it up from the get go. Not only does the whole field NOT get sunlight even with the roof open, especially in the fall, the part that doesn't get the sun is the south end. They can only remove the pallets from the north end. That means instead of just removing a few pallets from the south end of the stadium and leaving the rest of it inside where it gets sunlight, they pretty much have to remove the whole damn field.

And then the part that does get sun only gets a few hours per day (late morning to early afternoon). So they've got to get it all out of there anyway for it to get adequate sun exposure.

I say take them all out every time and keep them together, so they all get consistent sunlight and watering. Hate seeing the seams between trays on the field

CloakNNNdagger
08-13-2013, 10:48 PM
They just messed it up from the get go. Not only does the whole field NOT get sunlight even with the roof open, especially in the fall, the part that doesn't get the sun is the south end. They can only remove the pallets from the north end. That means instead of just removing a few pallets from the south end of the stadium and leaving the rest of it inside where it gets sunlight, they pretty much have to remove the whole damn field.

And then the part that does get sun only gets a few hours per day (late morning to early afternoon). So they've got to get it all out of there anyway for it to get adequate sun exposure.


As I mentioned in another post, the architects screwed up big time.

Mr.Scarface
08-13-2013, 11:21 PM
Personally, I like the retractable roof. We did the dome thing. That's soooo last century.

And as far as the cost, isn't some of that being deferred due to the name of the place. HL&P must be paying something like 15-25 mil per year for that place to be called Reliant. I can't find anywhere to confirm a figure for Reliant but this Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_rights) says $20 mil/year is typical for major mkt sports stadiums.

Reliant is paying $300 million over 30 years. It is the 3rd richest naming rights deal in Sports behind MetLife (Jets/Giants) and the new AT&T deal with the Cowboys.

CloakNNNdagger
08-14-2013, 06:49 AM
Reliant is paying $300 million over 30 years. It is the 3rd richest naming rights deal in Sports behind MetLife (Jets/Giants) and the new AT&T deal with the Cowboys.

And if you don't think that this is showing up on your electricity bills if you live in Harris County................

thunderkyss
08-14-2013, 09:06 AM
And if you don't think that this is showing up on your electricity bills if you live in Harris County................

Electricity is a commodity & since you have options to purchase your electricity from a few providers, Reliant really can't "pass" that expense on to the consumer.

Speedy
08-14-2013, 01:15 PM
I honestly don't know why anyone would use Reliant as a provider unless they just like throwing money away. Their rates are ridiculously high. My bill dropped by 40% when I dumped them.

ensign_lee
08-14-2013, 03:40 PM
And if you don't think that this is showing up on your electricity bills if you live in Harris County................

Texas is deregulated. Unless you are specifically choosing Reliant because they are a sponsor of the Houston Texans, this is not affecting you.

The price is what the market will bear, based on DEMAND, not the COST OF PRODUCTION.

ObsiWan
08-14-2013, 05:59 PM
And if you don't think that this is showing up on your electricity bills if you live in Harris County................

Electricity is a commodity & since you have options to purchase your electricity from a few providers, Reliant really can't "pass" that expense on to the consumer.

I honestly don't know why anyone would use Reliant as a provider unless they just like throwing money away. Their rates are ridiculously high. My bill dropped by 40% when I dumped them.

Texas is deregulated. Unless you are specifically choosing Reliant because they are a sponsor of the Houston Texans, this is not affecting you.

The price is what the market will bear, based on DEMAND, not the COST OF PRODUCTION.

Hey now... are you guys saying Doc is WRONG?
Awww HELLLL Naw!!

:kitten:

CloakNNNdagger
08-14-2013, 08:41 PM
Hey now... are you guys saying Doc is WRONG?
Awww HELLLL Naw!!

:kitten:

Does no one know that many of the subsidiary energy companies buy their energy through Reliant. Yes, they may (an are) cheaper because Reliant sells to them at wholesale prices, but they are more expensive than they would have been without Reliant having to recoup some of their money.:foottap:

BTW, I left Reliant years ago.......I've been with Stream since.......much cheaper........but still in the Reliant sales "network"

Mr.Scarface
08-15-2013, 12:58 PM
Texas is deregulated. Unless you are specifically choosing Reliant because they are a sponsor of the Houston Texans, this is not affecting you.

The price is what the market will bear, based on DEMAND, not the COST OF PRODUCTION.

Only areas serviced by Centerpoint and Oncor are deregulated (basically the Metro areas of Houston and Dallas/FT Worth.). Other parts are Texas are not......and that is a GOOD thing for those areas.

Mr.Scarface
08-15-2013, 01:08 PM
Does no one know that many of the subsidiary energy companies buy their energy through Reliant. Yes, they may (an are) cheaper because Reliant sells to them at wholesale prices, but they are more expensive than they would have been without Reliant having to recoup some of their money.:foottap:

BTW, I left Reliant years ago.......I've been with Stream since.......much cheaper........but still in the Reliant sales "network"

Reliant is not the utility, Centerpoint is. Reliant was broken up during deregulation (as was TXU) and split into Centerpoint and Reliant retail. Retail energy companies (including Reliant) get their energy thru Centerpoint.

CloakNNNdagger
08-15-2013, 05:28 PM
Reliant is not the utility, Centerpoint is. Reliant was broken up during deregulation (as was TXU) and split into Centerpoint and Reliant retail. Retail energy companies (including Reliant) get their energy thru Centerpoint.

Gotcha. I stand corrected, everyone!:tiphat: